Walker's Reason to Oppose Equal Pay: It pits one group (women) against another (men)!!! He's serious.

It's hard to imagine conflating the fight for equal pay with "pit(ing) one group of Americans versus another."

But that's what Scott Walker did on a right wing Boston Herald Radio Show last week, conveniently "forgetting" how he did just that with public workers. You can actually see and hear him saying "divide and conquer" in the video below. So, does that "pit one group of Americans versus another?

Right Wing Watch: Gov. Scott Walker attacked Hillary Clinton for her advocacy for equal pay legislation, saying that she was trying to “pit one group of Americans versus another.”

“But I think even a bigger issue than that,” he said, “and this is sadly something that would make her consistent with the president, and that is I believe that the president and now Hillary Clinton tend to think that politically they do better if they pit one group of Americans versus another.”

He said that, in contrast, “Americans are hungry” for leaders who will “make every American’s life better” rather than those who want to “pit one group against another group out there.”

Did Scott Walker just talk himself out of a job? 

White House stumped over simple Equal Pay for Equal Work executive order.

How to completely screw up the message? Look no further than the White House.

My conservative friend in Milwaukee has been on me about the pay equity problem in the White House, and they have totally screwed this up.

Right wing sites have had a field day on this, like NewsBusters:

On Tuesday's CBS This Morning, White House correspondent Major Garrett completely dismantled President Obama's left-wing talking points on the supposed gender pay gap of women making 77 cents on the dollar compared to men … Now, the White House said it's gender pay gap is tied to job experience, education, and hours worked, among other factors. This matters because those explanations, according to the Labor Department, explain a good deal of the gender pay gap nationally."

Equal Pay for Equal Work: How hard is it to make that point? No one is arguing for equal pay across the board within a workplace, so that’s not the issue. But no one pointed that out.

In this Major Garrett report transcript from CBS’s This Morning, the truth about equal pay for equal work is right there in his introduction:

And isn't that the point? My head is hurting.

Ryan and Romney Treat Women like special needs workers.

The bottom line: equal pay for equal work. It’s not about “flexible hours” or other perceived Republican drawbacks to hiring women.  In fact, according to this headline, “800,000 more women than men on payrolls in January 2010.”

Perhaps we should treat men the same way...?   

I don’t know about you, but when I started reading the following comments from Paul Ryan about helping women in the workplace, my blood began to boil. How much will women take from this condescending "leader" of the war on women?

ABC News: Ryan then talked about job skills and training and how that can help women seeking employment. “Now, what we need is a growing economy that gives people more flexibility in their schedules, adding that states should customize their own job training programs “to meet the unique needs of women.”

“What so many women need is the ability to have flexibility,” Ryan said. “Especially if you’re women with children, you want to have flexibility to have the kind of a job that gives you the ability to meet all of your needs and your family. That’s what job training skills are all about, that’s what growth is all about.”  Ryan said, “Most women get their jobs from successful small businesses,” and promised a Romney-Ryan administration would help grow those businesses, which he said are more flexible about many women’s schedules.

Ryan assumes small businesses are more flexible. Really, is Ryan guaranteeing that? Or are small businesses going to offer “flexibility” out of the goodness of their hearts when they're not pursuing the almighty dollar? Don't hold your breath.

But even more insulting is the way Ryan treats women’s jobs like low paying entry level positions. We certainly can’t expect big corporations to hire women with all of their special needs, can we?

“We’ve got to champion small businesses which are the kinds of companies that have flexible job schedules that women can get easily back in to the work force. Most people don’t get their jobs from the really big corporations, they get their jobs from successful small businesses,” Ryan said. “And of all the things we can do to get women back into the workforce, get them the skills they need, get an economy, and help those small businesses bring them back into the work force so they can provide for themselves and their families.”

Yes, we have to prepare women first. Not surprisingly, equal pay never came up:

Ryan never mentioned pay equity; However, after the debate, the Romney campaign also wavered on the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act with Romney adviser Ed Gillespie first telling reporters after the debate Romney “was opposed to” the proposed legislation “at the time,” but would not repeal it once in office. The next day Gillespie said he was wrong, and Romney “never weighed in on it,” and if Romney became president he would not repeal it. In Congress, Ryan voted against the Ledbetter Act.

I think this comment summed up what Ryan was really say, ‘I’m here to serve business:”

Today, Ryan said his job in the House of Representatives has “always been to listen to our employers.”

Thank you for that shocking admission! By the way, the above article was written by a woman, Shushanna Walshe. Guess she didn't notice? 

Sen. Glenn Grothman, "Good Luck Getting Laid."

Protester and all around anti-Walker guy Jeremy Ryan found this extraordinary song about Sen. Glenn Grothman. It's called "Good Luck Getting Laid," and it's by three women from the Second City Network. What's not to like....

Wage Discrimination a Left Wing Fantasy, Republican Women Happy with Less.

With the definitive look at pay inequality, this 14 minute segment from Rachel Maddow is all anyone needs to know on the subject.



Here's a short clip from a few weeks ago on Upfront with Mike Gousha, that like Maddow, was my moment of revelation. I honestly didn't believe women would say wage discrimination was a hoax too. Here's the amazingly clueless Rep. Michelle Litjens, who by the way, is not running again for office thank god:

Politifact kinda says Scott Walker was lying when he said Trial Lawyers on employer discrimination “Gravy Train”.

Trial lawyers were on a gravy train suing businesses for workplace discrimination, don’t cha know.

But like voter fraud, Walker came up with a solution looking for a problem. I swear almost everything Republican do have something to do with disabling their opponents in whatever way possible.

Politifact’s latest Walker takedown proves that point beyond any doubt:

When Politifact Wisconsin first wrote about an attempt by Republicans to repeal a law that allowed discriminated workers to sue in state court, we found a surprising statistic: The law had been in effect for nearly three years, but no such lawsuits had been filed.

And yet a month later, days after signing a repeal of the law, GOP Gov. Scott Walker suggested the law had been a financial windfall for attorneys. "In the past, it was kind of a gravy train for the trial bar," the governor told the Wisconsin Radio Network on April 10, 2012. He added: "The only change (the repeal) really makes is it no longer includes the benefit that was in place before for lawyers." Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie acknowledged that no state court lawsuits were filed while the old law was in effect. So, clearly lawyers weren’t getting paid based on their clients winning discrimination cases in state court.

But Werwie argued that the law was still a "kind of a gravy train" for lawyers because they could extract settlements from employers by threatening to sue in state court. Wisconsin Restaurant Assc. lobbyist Pete Hanson said that shortly after the old law took effect, one restaurant agreed to pay a roughly $50,000 settlement on a claim that typically would have been settled for a fraction of that because of the potential cost of a lawsuit. However, when the law was passed, it said it could only be applied to future cases -- not those already in the pipeline.

Werwie cited 2009 testimony in support of the old law by Madison attorney Paul Kinne, who represented the Wisconsin Association for Justice, Kinne argued "Limited damages make it very difficult to bring discrimination cases. Attorneys turn down dozens of cases because damages are limited and most people cannot afford to pay hourly fees."

Like Werwie’s first point, this one does not provide hard evidence that the law was a financial boon for lawyers. Werwie noted that, of six organizations that lobbied for the 2009 law, one was the trial lawyers group and four were unions. But that, too, does not support the "gravy train" statement.
We rate Walker’s statement Mostly False.

But who knows, anything can still happen. 

Rep. Michelle Litjens No Friend of Women's Pay, Thinks Disparity is a Myth.

Michelle Litjens is leaving politics, but not before she marks her territory by trashing women’s rights in the workplace. Move aside Sen. Glenn Grothman, Litjens just took the War on Women crown, turning in one of the most repugnant interviews I've seen to date. Her joyful smile over this serious topic is unsettling and shocking.

For Litjens, pay inequality is just a myth.

In a tactically rehearsed opening statement, a ploy I’ve seen parroted by other Republicans nationally, Litjens repeats the language used by equal pay supporters. It comes across oddly out of place and wrong, not to mention an extreme example of projection:

Litjens: “You know this is 2012, kinda thought we were past this. I thought women were treated equally as men, and I’m really surprised that we’re actually discussing this now. (nose scrunch) I think the left is really reaching for anything they can grab onto, so they can guarantee themselves a win in the fall…We should be celebrating as women. Is that women actually earning more, single childless women earn more money than single childless men. That’s something to celebrate.”

Litjens wants to celebrate? But she was deceptively twisting bad news into "good news." Here the real story:

Also troubling are comparisons showing that women with children are paid less than women without children, but that men with children are paid more than men without children. 

It takes a really sick mind to make something so bad look like an event to celebrate. Democratic Rep. Sandy Pasch corrects every horrific lie Litjens conjures up, with facts. Upfront with Mike Gousha:

The perky Litjens acts like wage discrimination is just made up. So why was the Supreme Court dealing with the following: 

Corning Glass Works v. Brennan (1974), U.S. Supreme Court: Ruled that employers cannot justify paying women lower wages because that is what they traditionally received under the "going market rate." A wage differential occurring "simply because men would not work at the low rates paid women" was unacceptable.

See, employers were actually justifying lower wages for women, which in turn, must mean wage discrimination is…real! Here are a few quick facts:

We don't expect the wage gap to close until 40-plus years. On a national level by occupation the findings show that median earnings for women are lower than men's in nearly all occupations.

Between 1950 and 1960, women with full time jobs earned on average between 59–64 cents for every dollar their male counterparts earned in the same job. In 2008 they earned 77% of men's wages … In 2005, women under 25 working full-time earned 93.2% of men's salaries compared to those 25 and older, who earned 79.4% of what men made. In 2009, President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act. This Act is named after a former employee of Goodyear who alleged that she was paid 15-40 percent less than her male counterparts, which was later found to be accurate. Women currently make approximately 80 cents for every dollar that men earn.

Women are Clogging up the Legal System Suing over Equal Pay Violations!

Al Sharpton focused on Scott Walker's recent repeal of certain rights in the states equal pay law. In a clip he provided, Scott Walker says he's worried that lawyers (really, women who are suing) will clog up the legal system. Sharpton comes back with,

"Am I missing something, equality would clog up the legal system? I thought the system was to make sure we have equality." 

 Lilly Ledbetter takes Scott Walker on:

Is there anything Republicans won't S**t On? Propose Repealing Equal Pay Law!

Walker supporters need to come up with a reason why his legislative henchmen are plundering laws protecting everyone from harm to equal pay. Equal pay? Would you believe...

Wispolitics: On the heels of recent research that shows Wisconsin families gaining ground as a result of Wisconsin’s Equal Pay law, Assembly Republicans are poised to repeal it risking many of the gains Wisconsin workers and their families experienced since the law was passed in 2009. The state’s Equal Pay Enforcement Act was enacted just two short years ago.

Please, explain to me why paying women less will help the job creators? I'm listening. Republicans would let employers off the hook for workplace discrimination, by eliminating the penalties. So if the law is working, we should repeal it?

Research shows Wisconsin has been one of a handful of states that has seen the gap narrow. Legislative Reference Bureau: “Median female earnings as a percentage of median male earnings rose by 3.0% in Wisconsin between 2009 and 2010. Only four states had larger increases. Prior to the new law Wisconsin families were losing more than $4,000 per year due to women being paid less than men for the same work. 

Republicans tell Women to sit in the back of the kitchen, reject Pay Equity.

Again, how is it Republicans can get away with insulting working women everywhere, the ones who turned out in the midterms and voted Republican, and deny them equal pay without some kind of blowback?

After the Great Recession, or what has been refered to as the "Mancession," women's role in the workplace has taken on greater importance as they take on the role of bread winner.

Huffington Post: Here's what we know from the 2010 election: issue #1 for women is economic security. That's why women gave the GOP a once in a generation opportunity to win us over. Absurdly, the Republican Party then turns around and pushes women away by thwarting our financial security. Ya know, us 'wimminz' -- the primary breadwinners or co-breadwinners in nearly two-thirds of American families.

Is the Paycheck Fairness Act perfect? No. Does it solve the disparity of pay that women face? Not totally. But it is a huge step towards women's financial security.

Sadly, here's what the GOP said to women Wednesday: "we don't believe women deserve to make the same wage as men for doing the same job." It's not much more complicated than that.

Marriage is not what it used to be, according to new data from TIME Magazine. The magazine conducted a poll with the Pew Research Center on the evolution of marriage, and reveals the results today on American Morning. Among the findings:
- 40 percent of Americans believe marriage is obsolete, up from 28 percent in 1979.

Newsweek: Opponents argued that the act would have been bad for small businesses, that it was unnecessary, redundant, and a vestige of an activist, knee-jerk feminist movement. The American Association of University Women recently compared women and men with the same education, same grades, same kinds of jobs—in other words, where all things were otherwise equal—and found that women earn 5 percent less in their very first year out of school. Ten years
later, even if they haven’t had children, they earn 12 percent less.

In another study, Catalyst found that female first-year MBA students earn $4,600 less than their male peers in their very first job.

But consider that men have been the victims of this recession in record numbers, to the point that it’s frequently called the “mancession” and that it has led to a 36 percent increase in the number of families depending on women’s earnings in the last year alone. Sure, those businesses may be saving money by paying those women less than they would have had to pay men, but is it really in the interest of the American public—yes, those small business owners included—to allow them to save at the expense of families?

At 77 cents on the dollar, women will lose an average of $431,000 in pay over 40 years. Those losses in income don’t just represent money in the bank. That’s money that could have been spent, and spent wisely. When you consider that women reinvest 90 percent of their income into their own community and family (vs. just the 30 to 40 percent that men invest), the impact could have been particularly powerful. How’s that for common sense?

Related articles

• A Setback in the Fight for Women's Pay Equality (newsweek.com)
• President Obama Meets With Equal Pay Advocates (whitehouse.gov)
• Republicans Block Bill Preventing Wage Discrimination In The Workplace (huffingtonpost.com)
• Marriage Obsolete? (abcnews.go.com)